I cucked Alex Jones
3,963

I cucked Alex Jones
3,963

Sometimes, like the moments leading up to when a police officer decides to shoot someone, transparency is an unalloyed good. And especially lately, technology has progressed to a point that it makes this kind of transparency not just possible, but routine.

So it is in Rialto, Calif., where an entire police force is wearing so-called body-mounted cameras, no bigger than pagers, that record everything that transpires between officers and citizens. In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.

It isn't known how many police departments are making regular use of cameras, though it is being considered as a way of perhaps altering the course of events in places such as Ferguson, Mo., where an officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager.

What happens when police wear cameras isn't simply that tamper-proof recording devices provide an objective record of an encounter—though some of the reduction in complaints is apparently because of citizens declining to contest video evidence of their behavior—but a modification of the psychology of everyone involved.

The effect of third-party observers on behavior has long been known: Thomas Jefferson once advised that "whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching." Psychologists have confirmed this intuition, showing that something as primitive as a poster with a pair of glaring eyes can make test subjects behave better, and even reduce theft in an area.

One problem with the cameras, however, has been cost. Fortunately, fierce competition between the two most prominent vendors of the devices, Vievu LLC and Taser International Inc., TASR +5.54% which makes the cameras used by Rialto police, has driven the price of individual cameras down to between $300 and $400. Unfortunately, one place where expenses can mount is in the storage and management of the data they generate.

Both Taser and Vievu offer cloud-based storage systems for a monthly subscription fee. Think of it as an evidence room-as-a-service, where vendors are happy to see police departments outsource some of their most critical functions, and be subject to the same kind of vendor lock-in that can make corporate IT managers wary of the cloud.

But Taser's system stores video data on Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +0.27% 's cloud, where prices are falling rapidly, and there isn't much about cameras from either vendor that couldn't be reproduced by an enterprising startup. Given that body-worn cameras use components from the mobile industry, where prices are ground down by scale and competition, it's possible police forces will soon be able to come up with their own solutions, or use off-the shelf products such as Google Glass.

With all eyes on Ferguson, Mo., in the wake of the death of Michael Brown, a renewed focus is being put on police transparency. Is the solution body-mounted cameras for police officers?

These are all reasons that Michael White, a professor of criminology at Arizona State University and, as the sole author of the Justice Department's report on police and body-mounted cameras, says the cameras, now a curiosity, could soon be ubiquitous. It has happened before: Taser's guns went from introduction to use by more than two-thirds of America's 18,000 police departments in about a decade. "It could be as little as 10 years until we see most police wearing these," says Dr. White.

Not everyone is happy about this possibility. After an order by a federal judge that the New York Police Department equip officers with body-worn cameras in some districts, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association issued a report declaring that they would be an "encumbrance." In the mid-1990s the rollout of dashboard cameras, now standard issue in most patrol cars, met the same resistance, which is why Dr. White says it is important that the adoption of this technology be accomplished through consensus.

"There is a presumption that citizens will be happy with this because it seems to provide more transparency and accountability, but that might not be the case, especially in areas where there are long-term tensions between police and their communities," says Dr. White.

Still, privacy issues abound, and rules about protecting both witnesses and police must be established and tested. Officers would have to turn on their cameras during every encounter with citizens, argues the American Civil Liberties Union, but there might be exceptions, such as when officers are interviewing victims of assault, says Dr. White.

None of these issues have stopped police forces in the U.K., where departments have a decade head start on their counterparts in the U.S., from ever-wider adoption. Police in England and Wales are engaged in large-scale trials, and the aim is to make body-worn cameras standard issue.

In the U.K., where tests with them began in 2005, studies have shown that they aid in the prosecution of crimes, by providing additional, and uniquely compelling, evidence. In the U.S., in some instances they have shortened the amount of time required to investigate a shooting by police from two-to-three months to two-to-three days.

And they represent yet one more way we are being recorded by means that could eventually be leaked to the public.

Of course, sometimes events happen that accelerate the adoption of a technological fix. The tragic irony is that police in Ferguson have a stock of body-worn cameras, but have yet to deploy them to officers.

In light of the recent Michael Brown shooting, more and more people are speaking out against police brutality and the lack of transparency of police departments across the United States. Which is why it's interesting I recently came across this article in the WSJ. Basically police in Rialto, California have started wearing body cameras when they go out on patrol. (not all of them, about half) The PD has noticed 88% reduction in the number of complaints they receive about officers, while officers used force 60% less often. Officers who wore the cameras were twice as likely not to use force.

Obviously this has raised complaints about surveillance, both by officers and regular citizens, but I think the reduction of complaints and force used is well worth the trade of. Both cops and the people they deal with seem to monitor they're behavior thanks to these cameras.

sigh... do you even know why some people even turn to a life of crime in the first place? it's not because they're just "bad people". the social and economic conditions pressure the person to do crimes. if you are poor, you last resort may have to be drug dealing and things like that to survive.

damn, two posts in and we're already off-topic. but i had to say it because cop apologists piss me off.

OT: yes we should have police body cameras. you would have to be insane to not want body cameras on police.

sigh... do you even know why some people even turn to a life of crime in the first place? it's not because they're just "bad people". the social and economic conditions pressure the person to do crimes. if you are poor, you last resort may have to be drug dealing and things like that to survive.

damn, two posts in and we're already off-topic. but i had to say it because cop apologists piss me off.

OT: yes we should have police body cameras. you would have to be insane to not want body cameras on police.

Robs a store

Police arrive

Approaches police with knife and hand in pocket

Police warn him to stop approaching and take hand out of pocket with guns drawn

Repeatedly says "SHOOT ME!" while continuing to approach police

Police shoot him

PS I am in no way a "cop apologist", I could easily call you a "black-thug apologist", see? Anyways this probably deserves a thread of it's own so I won't drag it anymore off-topic than it is

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

universetwisters
30,018

universetwisters
30,018

So far I don't see anything wrong with the idea. I mean, we got cameras in squad cars already, right? If anything it would be good for all this police brutality claims or whatever's going around like an STD

That first bit is pure insane hateful bullsh*t, i guess being black is a capitol offense, according to you.

The second part I agree with 100%, cops need to have camera on them at all times. The few police departments that have done this have seen vast decreases in violent incidents as the cops know they are being watched.

That first bit is pure insane hateful bullsh*t, i guess being black is a capitol offense, according to you.

The second part I agree with 100%, cops need to have camera on them at all times. The few police departments that have done this have seen vast decreases in violent incidents as the cops know they are being watched.

You obviously didn't read my post below my first one where I took back what I said because it turned out the video I saw wasn't actually Michael Brown. And no, I have no hate towards black people nor am I racist in any way.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

PhillBellic
24,438

PhillBellic
24,438

Provided proper safeguards are put in place for privacy, for example the interviewing of rape victims and the like, I am all for police officers wearing body cameras. In fact most of us already have at least one camera in our pockets, it's in our smartphone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

El Dildo
14,393

El Dildo
14,393

at this point in the discussion I don't really have a lot to add, but I've been wanting to agree for awhile about how great of an idea this is.

I have literally not heard one, single good argument against police officers being made to wear first-person cameras.

the evidence is already there in virtually all dashboard cams and helmet cams used by certain units already.

this basically applies to any normal person but whenever police officers know that everything is being filmed, they tend to behave MUCH more in accordance with proper jurisprudence and common decency. we should be training the police to apply more diplomacy and less force in general - and I think that a majority of police feel the same - but the presence of video evidence ensures that even those bent cops who enjoy abusing the law would be forced to change their habits (for the better).

I don't see where anyone could possibly argue against more police surveillance in an age where the police are becoming increasingly threatening and militarized.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gay Tony
4,855

Gay Tony
4,855

at this point in the discussion I don't really have a lot to add, but I've been wanting to agree for awhile about how great of an idea this is.

I have literally not heard one, single good argument against police officers being made to wear first-person cameras.

the evidence is already there in virtually all dashboard cams and helmet cams used by certain units already.

this basically applies to any normal person but whenever police officers know that everything is being filmed, they tend to behave MUCH more in accordance with proper jurisprudence and common decency. we should be training the police to apply more diplomacy and less force in general - and I think that a majority of police feel the same - but the presence of video evidence ensures that even those bent cops who enjoy abusing the law would be forced to change their habits (for the better).

I don't see where anyone could possibly argue against more police surveillance in an age where the police are becoming increasingly threatening and militarized.

See my previous post.

I'd feel safer from abuse knowing they were wearing cameras, yes.

I'm not against police body cams in particular per say, it's just where our world is headed and the overall picture.

You could apply this "change your habits" argument for everyone and everything else, in any position

There are many, many of us who are guarded and extremely cautious against this idea that every aspect of our lives and behavior should up for scrutiny and thrown on the world web all in the name of "transparency!"

I've noticed this somewhat unnerving and increasing new age idea that instead of 1984 and traditional big brother, that big brother tech and privacy nightmares should be in the hands of all.

I agree with whoever said they need proper, outlined privacy safeguards place and not some information gone-crazy free for all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dingdongs
2,658

Dingdongs
2,658

The "good argument" against police body cams is that you seem to forget that these men and women are WORKING A JOB. How would you like it if your bosses made you wear cameras on your person and saw when you goofed off on facebook and GTA forums, sh*t talked the boss, sat in the bathroom for 15 minutes to avoid doing something, cursed with your buddies, etc. The list is endless. I get called a cop apologist a lot mostly due to my background of coming from a cop/military family, but I really think this a pile of steaming bullsh*t. The only way this would be acceptable and fair is if the camera footage were per department/agency policy made available ONLY if the officer is involved in a shooting or other severe incident cleared by the Police Commissioner/agency executive. There is a human side to this issue that no one seems to talk about. It's all just cop hating and talking sh*t.

Share on other sites

Gay Tony
4,855

Gay Tony
4,855

police body cameras do not logically lead to body cameras on every man, woman, and child.

It doesn't "logically" lead to the next thing like a damn algebra equation, and it doesn't have to.

I've already seen this happen multiple times in this thread alone, "we'll, we already have dashboard cams"

Next it'll be "We'll, we already have police cams, so lets try this......."

Defending privacy isn't about doing bad things or commiting crime, it's really about not having every aspect of your life, every word, movement, bolidly function, (thought depending on who you ask) put on a pedestal then judged and scritinized by someone you've never met or will meet, someone you know, police, society, anyone really but that's not the point.

Most of you just won't understand until the day a drone is over your head or you're literally required to wear a live-streaming camera at all times for crime prevention.

I'm not saying you're this type, just that there are real arguments against this sort of monitoring of police, or anyone for that matter.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AlienTwo
30,226

AlienTwo
30,226

The "good argument" against police body cams is that you seem to forget that these men and women are WORKING A JOB. How would you like it if your bosses made you wear cameras on your person and saw when you goofed off on facebook and GTA forums, sh*t talked the boss, sat in the bathroom for 15 minutes to avoid doing something, cursed with your buddies, etc. The list is endless. I get called a cop apologist a lot mostly due to my background of coming from a cop/military family, but I really think this a pile of steaming bullsh*t. The only way this would be acceptable and fair is if the camera footage were per department/agency policy made available ONLY if the officer is involved in a shooting or other severe incident cleared by the Police Commissioner/agency executive. There is a human side to this issue that no one seems to talk about. It's all just cop hating and talking sh*t.

Yeah, but my job doesn't give me the authority to imprison, injure and kill other people based upon my account of whatever events may or may not have taken place. That is a bad analogy, through and through. With the way the police, at least in the US, have been behaving the past 20 years or so, it's hard to not understand why there is a lot of heat/anger directed at them. We are occupying our own nation and policing our own citizens like POWs and some form of unbiased monitoring is required, controlled by citizens as we see the reticent with with cops charge and arrest other officers.

it's not a good argument.

it's just the old "slippery slope" which holds little weight.

police body cameras do not logically lead to body cameras on every man, woman, and child.

It doesn't "logically" lead to the next thing like a damn algebra equation, and it doesn't have to.

I've already seen this happen multiple times in this thread alone, "we'll, we already have dashboard cams"

Next it'll be "We'll, we already have police cams, so lets try this......."

Defending privacy isn't about doing bad things or commiting crime, it's really about not having every aspect of your life, every word, movement, bolidly function, (thought depending on who you ask) put on a pedestal then judged and scritinized by you've never met, someone you know, police, society, anyone really.

Most of you just won't understand until the day you're literally required to wear a live-streaming camera at all times for crime prevention.

I'm not saying you're this type, just that there are real arguments against this sort of monitoring of police, or anyone for that matter.

I think that is a bit of a straw man argument, the police are a very separate and different class of job/citizen than the rest of us, not often does "Well the police do it, so we all should" get used as an argument or reason for pushing policy/social change on people.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem
19,024

sivispacem
19,024

Defending privacy isn't about doing bad things or commiting crime, it's really about not having every aspect of your life, every word, movement, bolidly function, (thought depending on who you ask) put on a pedestal then judged and scritinized by someone you've never met or will meet, someone you know, police, society, anyone really but that's not the point.

What you fail to grasp is that, in public, you don't have a right to privacy and nor should you. What happens in public is exactly that- public. And as long as cameras of whatever kind are solely in a public space, or in a private space where all stakeholders agree with their use, then no-one's privacy is being intruded into.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gay Tony
4,855

Gay Tony
4,855

Defending privacy isn't about doing bad things or commiting crime, it's really about not having every aspect of your life, every word, movement, bolidly function, (thought depending on who you ask) put on a pedestal then judged and scritinized by someone you've never met or will meet, someone you know, police, society, anyone really but that's not the point.

What you fail to grasp is that, in public, you don't have a right to privacy and nor should you. What happens in public is exactly that- public. And as long as cameras of whatever kind are solely in a public space, or in a private space where all stakeholders agree with their use, then no-one's privacy is being intruded into.

I don't fail to grasp anything, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Believe me, I know this all too well (legally speaking). The "right" to privacy.

That's how I know one thing will lead to another, just like what people have been saying in this thead.

So, you'd have no objections to someone, anyone putting a drone over your head the second you walk out your front door, and know exactly where you are, who you're with, and what you're saying? on the roads, building, parking lots, your back yard?

Are the text messages you type and send in public, public simply since you typed and sent it over park bench within reach of a camera?

You're a perfect example of someone who just doesn't get it.

Even if public were completely fair game (as it is now), you don't think that even more and more discrete tech wouldn't used to invade your legal privacy? (not that it isn't happening already)

When Google Earth, lifestream, or whatever it'll be called can capture every utterance and behavior of human existence, record and display everything, then and only then will you grasp the size and scale, the annihilation of privacy.

It'll happen the same way you won't be able tell the difference between a real human and an android, thats how technology and advancement function.

And that will happen, unless there's an uproar and laws on privacy change or a major catastrophe halts tech from progressing. Even a catastrophe will only be putting off this inevitable tech breakthrough.

Yes, it is public, but the public should decide how public property is used. Or if police wear body cameras.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

El Dildo
14,393

El Dildo
14,393

The "good argument" against police body cams is that you seem to forget that these men and women are WORKING A JOB. How would you like it if your bosses made you wear cameras on your person and saw when you goofed off on facebook and GTA forums, sh*t talked the boss, sat in the bathroom for 15 minutes...

congratualtions on completely missing the point.

you're arguing a false equivalency.

the job of a police officer is unlike any other job in society.

sure, I might sit in the bathroom and waste 15 minutes. meanwhile, a police officer might murder someone in broad daylight with impunity.

which job requires more responsbility?

which job requires more public scrutiny?

which job requires more public transparency?

the answer is glaringly obvious.

Defending privacy isn't about doing bad things or commiting crime, it's really about not having every aspect of your life, every word, movement, bolidly function, (thought depending on who you ask) put on a pedestal then judged and scritinized by someone you've never met or will meet, someone you know, police, society, anyone really but that's not the point.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gay Tony
4,855

Gay Tony
4,855

The "good argument" against police body cams is that you seem to forget that these men and women are WORKING A JOB. How would you like it if your bosses made you wear cameras on your person and saw when you goofed off on facebook and GTA forums, sh*t talked the boss, sat in the bathroom for 15 minutes...

congratualtions on completely missing the point.

you're arguing a false equivalency.

the job of a police officer is unlike any other job in society.

sure, I might sit in the bathroom and waste 15 minutes. meanwhile, a police officer might murder someone in broad daylight with impunity.

which job requires more responsbility?

which job requires more public scrutiny?

which job requires more public transparency?

the answer is glaringly obvious.

Defending privacy isn't about doing bad things or commiting crime, it's really about not having every aspect of your life, every word, movement, bolidly function, (thought depending on who you ask) put on a pedestal then judged and scritinized by someone you've never met or will meet, someone you know, police, society, anyone really but that's not the point.

sure, I might sit in the bathroom and waste 15 minutes. meanwhile, a police officer might murder someone in broad daylight with impunity.

which job requires more responsbility?

which job requires more public scrutiny?

which job requires more public transparency?

the answer is glaringly obvious.

So could a security guard at an office building authorized to carry a gun, so could one of the tens of thousands of Americans with concealed carry permits. Like I said, I would be more inclined to support it if and only if the footage were only accessible if the officer were involved in a deadly force incident. But even then, I really don't see what good it does. You seem to be missing the point and talking as if you know what a cop does on a daily basis. I will reiterate my previous point that IT IS A JOB like any other, and with that comes the same mundane tasks you do on a daily basis. Having footage of cops while they are sitting in a coffee shop bullsh*tting with their partner talking sh*t about the CO or their watch commander helps nobody, and dehumanizes the job to a point where you might as well just hire machines to police for us, when we are in an era of trying to make police into a more community oriented concept.

With that said, what exactly are you talking about where there have been incidents of cops murdering people in broad daylight? The Michael Brown case is hardly cut and dry, and the case in NYC with the chokehold is clearly wrongdoing on the part of the cop, and it sure as hell doesn't take a video to prove that. The autopsy still would've shown ligature marks consistent with a chokehold and it still would've been ruled a homocide with aggravating factors of the guy's diabetes and heart conditions if there were a video, or if there were not a video.

How about the public learns to obey instructions from police officers first?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem
19,024

sivispacem
19,024

Believe me, I know this all too well (legally speaking). The "right" to privacy.

Clearly not, as you've made a fallacious snowball argument claiming that increased surveillance in public places automatically and undeniably leads to increased intrusions into people's private lives, which is neither a logical conclusion nor supported by evidence. I like your vague claims about "knowing all too well", would you care to disclose exactly what grounding in the subject you have that entitles you to appeal to yourself as an authority?

So, you'd have no objections to someone, anyone putting a drone over your head the second you walk out your front door, and know exactly where you are, who you're with, and what you're saying? on the roads, building, parking lots, your back yard?

My back yard is private property, but generally speaking, in the rest of the places, no I wouldn't really care. Not that such a thing would ever actually happen, so ridiculous a notion is it that anyone (either an individual or a group) has either the desire nor practical potential capability to surveil the entire population of anything larger than a small village simultaneously, but then again those who frantically wave the anti-surveillance banner seldom actually have any practical understanding of the subject matter to inform their opinions.

Are the text messages you type and send in public, public simply since you typed and sent it over park bench within reach of a camera?

No, but they're certainly not private in the conventional sense given that, like most other electronic communication mediums, they're carried by a third party provider and therefore subject to the whims of them, up to and including being able to see what I've written. The issue is that communication technology in particular, by virtue of how it works on a protocol level, leaks huge amounts of what you would probably describe as "private" information to anyone capable or competent enough to analyse it.

Let's dissect this logically. Firstly, exactly whom would benefit from, be able to monetise, or otherwise actually have some kind of purpose in doing so. It's easy to harvest huge quantities of data via digital means but photographic or video data is fairly labour intensive. You talk of drones- whose going to fly them? They aren't really autonomous. Whose going to monitor the video feeds? Whose going to be buying up hundreds if not thousands of what are basically very extensive hobbyist toys? Why? A reasonable person would also recognise that the weight of public opinion is largely against what they perceive as mass surveillance undertaken by corporate or government bodies regardless of any individual culpability in it, and we don't really have liberal and democratic governments forcing it down our throats even in the public domain (that's largely the doing of private entities) so the whole thing strikes me as misguided paranoia.

You're a perfect example of someone who just doesn't get it.

"Get" what? Your vapid and largely baseless musings on the nature of privacy? You're right, I don't get it.

Even if public were completely fair game (as it is now), you don't think that even more and more discrete tech wouldn't used to invade your legal privacy? (not that it isn't happening already)

When Google Earth, lifestream, or whatever it'll be called can capture every utterance and behavior of human existence, record and display everything, then and only then will you grasp the size and scale, the annihilation of privacy.

This simply boils down to the fact people are always eager to sign away any vestiges of privacy left in the digital world for the sake of added convenience. These large companies make fairly clear what they're going to do with the data that you supply them in the legally-binding service provider contracts you have to accept before using their services. The irony is that the very people who complain so vocally about invasion of their privacy tend to be the ones who enable this by either voluntarily or passively spreading huge amounts of what's known in the business as PII (personally identifiable information) far and wide, and seem to live by the bizarre maxim that things they've effectively placed in the public domain should only be looked at by who they want, which isn't really how things work.

Yes, it is public, but the public should decide how public property is used. Or if police wear body cameras.

The public does decide. These things are widely consulted on in most of the developed world. The majority of people, informed or otherwise, are in favour of them- albeit with some sensible limitations highlighted by some of the comments Ivirding has made.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gay Tony
4,855

Gay Tony
4,855

Believe me, I know this all too well (legally speaking). The "right" to privacy.

Clearly not, as you've made a fallacious snowball argument claiming that increased surveillance in public places automatically and undeniably leads to increased intrusions into people's private lives, which is neither a logical conclusion nor supported by evidence. I like your vague claims about "knowing all too well", would you care to disclose exactly what grounding in the subject you have that entitles you to appeal to yourself as an authority?

So, you'd have no objections to someone, anyone putting a drone over your head the second you walk out your front door, and know exactly where you are, who you're with, and what you're saying? on the roads, building, parking lots, your back yard?

My back yard is private property, but generally speaking, in the rest of the places, no I wouldn't really care. Not that such a thing would ever actually happen, so ridiculous a notion is it that anyone (either an individual or a group) has either the desire nor practical potential capability to surveil the entire population of anything larger than a small village simultaneously, but then again those who frantically wave the anti-surveillance banner seldom actually have any practical understanding of the subject matter to inform their opinions.

Are the text messages you type and send in public, public simply since you typed and sent it over park bench within reach of a camera?

No, but they're certainly not private in the conventional sense given that, like most other electronic communication mediums, they're carried by a third party provider and therefore subject to the whims of them, up to and including being able to see what I've written. The issue is that communication technology in particular, by virtue of how it works on a protocol level, leaks huge amounts of what you would probably describe as "private" information to anyone capable or competent enough to analyse it.

Let's dissect this logically. Firstly, exactly whom would benefit from, be able to monetise, or otherwise actually have some kind of purpose in doing so. It's easy to harvest huge quantities of data via digital means but photographic or video data is fairly labour intensive. You talk of drones- whose going to fly them? They aren't really autonomous. Whose going to monitor the video feeds? Whose going to be buying up hundreds if not thousands of what are basically very extensive hobbyist toys? Why? A reasonable person would also recognise that the weight of public opinion is largely against what they perceive as mass surveillance undertaken by corporate or government bodies regardless of any individual culpability in it, and we don't really have liberal and democratic governments forcing it down our throats even in the public domain (that's largely the doing of private entities) so the whole thing strikes me as misguided paranoia.

You're a perfect example of someone who just doesn't get it.

"Get" what? Your vapid and largely baseless musings on the nature of privacy? You're right, I don't get it.

Even if public were completely fair game (as it is now), you don't think that even more and more discrete tech wouldn't used to invade your legal privacy? (not that it isn't happening already)

When Google Earth, lifestream, or whatever it'll be called can capture every utterance and behavior of human existence, record and display everything, then and only then will you grasp the size and scale, the annihilation of privacy.

This simply boils down to the fact people are always eager to sign away any vestiges of privacy left in the digital world for the sake of added convenience. These large companies make fairly clear what they're going to do with the data that you supply them in the legally-binding service provider contracts you have to accept before using their services. The irony is that the very people who complain so vocally about invasion of their privacy tend to be the ones who enable this by either voluntarily or passively spreading huge amounts of what's known in the business as PII (personally identifiable information) far and wide, and seem to live by the bizarre maxim that things they've effectively placed in the public domain should only be looked at by who they want, which isn't really how things work.

Yes, it is public, but the public should decide how public property is used. Or if police wear body cameras.

The public does decide. These things are widely consulted on in most of the developed world. The majority of people, informed or otherwise, are in favour of them- albeit with some sensible limitations highlighted by some of the comments Ivirding has made.

I'm just trying to show if you go by the "no privacy in any public" argument alone than everything I said could technically happen if taken literally and to the extreme.

Whether or not you think it's plausible isn't the point, it's possible given the "privacy only in your house" thinking and laws of today.

Sure you might "not know" (c'mon, really?) if some particular person slept with another, just that they were in the same house at the same time. How do you think we go from one location to another? by walking, driving, ect.

It's as simple as handing over a piece of gum. Or walking down a sidewalk making simple conversation.... all on a public street.

That's where you do start getting into victimless crimes like prostitution, drugs, and other things like smoking or just doing or saying something someoneelse in society finds immoral or offensive and judges you by it. Maybe they have have influence over you, maybe they don't.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

El Dildo
14,393

El Dildo
14,393

I would be more inclined to support it if and only if the footage were only accessible if the officer were involved in a deadly force incident. But even then, I really don't see what good it does. You seem to be missing the point and talking as if you know what a cop does on a daily basis. I will reiterate my previous point that IT IS A JOB like any other, and with that comes the same mundane tasks you do on a daily basis.

you can reiterate but you're still missing the point.

do some research on how your local government breaks down the duties of your local law enforcement.

just because a police officer sometimes shares moments of mundane bullsh*t with the rest of us, this doesn't excuse the fact that their job is completely different from yours or mine, and unlike any other job in society.it doesn't change the fact that their role in society requires much more responsibility, scruinty, and transparency than the typical 9 to 5'er.

if you can't even see how a law enforcement officer requires more criticism than the kid flipping burgers at McDonalds, I'm afraid we can't really continue this debate.

I'm just trying to show if you go by the "no privacy in any public" argument alone than everything I said could technically happen if taken literally and to the extreme.

"technically" anything can happen at any time.

but debating hyperbolic fantasy doesn't get us anywhere in this discussion.

Putting cameras on cops will make putting cameras on other people in other positions more acceptable as ways to "solve" problems.

it could but it won't.

most jobs in our society are considered private in nature. the job of the police officer is a sworn public service; they literally work for us. extreme danger is the not the only reason their job is unlike any other.

the police have had dashboard cameras for decades.

in the aftermath of this movement, the only other industries that were pressured to install and use cameras were transport truck drivers; not pizza delivery boys or chaufers or taxi drivers or virtually anyone else.

you know who decided they wanted to use dash cameras to start capturing everything?

the public! no one has forced us to involve more surveillance in our lives, but people have since gone out and bought their own dash cams and GoPros and love to film themselves doing everything at all times.

if cameras suddenly appear everywhere in society, it won't come in the form of an oppressive government forcing us to be watched and recorded. it will be a voluntary and willing public that wants it....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem
19,024

sivispacem
19,024

I'm just trying to show if you go by the "no privacy in any public" argument alone than everything I said could technically happen if taken literally and to the extreme.

Except you haven't "shown" that but merely claimed it was an inescapable conclusion. It's not even logically sound as a thought process so has little to no value in a practical discussion. It isn't even a case of confusing correlation with causation; it is simply a presumption without logical reasoning and without evidence, and more arguments from anecdote aren't going to make that any less true.

Whether or not you think it's plausible isn't the point, it's possible given the "privacy only in your house" thinking and laws of today.

Actually it's very much the point. An extremely implausible theory is not a suitable basis for constructing an argument. Snowball fallacies, especially those which are entirely unsupported by evidence, are of even less use. You simply cannot logically claim that additional surveillance in public places leads to more private surveillance, partially because the legal distinction between public and private is pretty well defined but mostly because it is nothing more than a personal belief.

That's where you do start getting into victimless crimes like prostitution

I'm sorry, by what measure is prostitution a "victimless crime"? I generally regard the targets of slavery, human trafficking, child abuse, forced drug addiction and pimping as "victims" and I imagine most other people sound of mind would too.

I'm just trying to show if you go by the "no privacy in any public" argument alone than everything I said could technically happen if taken literally and to the extreme.

Except you haven't "shown" that but merely claimed it was an inescapable conclusion. It's not even logically sound as a thought process so has little to no value in a practical discussion. It isn't even a case of confusing correlation with causation; it is simply a presumption without logical reasoning and without evidence, and more arguments from anecdote aren't going to make that any less true.

Whether or not you think it's plausible isn't the point, it's possible given the "privacy only in your house" thinking and laws of today.

Actually it's very much the point. An extremely implausible theory is not a suitable basis for constructing an argument. Snowball fallacies, especially those which are entirely unsupported by evidence, are of even less use. You simply cannot logically claim that additional surveillance in public places leads directly, unquestionably or even probably to more private surveillance, partially because the legal distinction between public and private is pretty well defined but mostly because it is nothing more than a personal belief.

That's where you do start getting into victimless crimes like prostitution

I'm sorry, by what measure is prostitution a "victimless crime"? I generally regard the targets of slavery, human trafficking, child abuse, forced drug addiction and pimping as "victims" and I imagine most other people sound of mind would too.